Provincial bureaucrats are quietly pursuing federal approval for a controversial flood mitigation project to protect parts of Calgary even though the NDP government says it has yet to decide whether it will proceed with the Springbank offstream diversion pushed by its Tory predecessors.

Officials with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency confirmed Wednesday they received a draft submission from the Alberta government on a proposed review process for the project in the wake of last month’s provincial election.

Announced by former Premier Jim Prentice last fall just days before he called a byelection for a flood-affected city riding, the estimated expenditure of $250 million was criticized by the New Democrats during the recent provincewide campaign.

But now Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said the party is reviewing that position.

“I am not convinced that every decision the previous government made was terrible,” said Phillips, “neither, too, am I convinced that all of their approaches are entirely within the public interest.”

Indications the New Democrats may reverse their previous stand on the massive canal, dam and reservoir planned for the Elbow River upstream of the city comes as a new study obtained by the Herald raises serious questions about whether the project makes economic sense.

Commissioned by landowners who stand to lose their property if the project proceeds, the review by a University of Montana economist says the government’s cost-benefit numbers may seriously underestimate how much it will have to pay for the land needed for the project and grossly overestimate the future damages it would prevent if built.

With those numbers still in flux, Thomas Power said the government doesn’t yet have the solid information it needs to decide if the project should go ahead.

“These are very preliminary analyses that shouldn’t in any way be used as decision-making documents,” Power said.

“Good public economic policy has to resist that panicked approach that we could have a flood next year, that we have to get something in place.”

The cost-benefit numbers prepared for the province by IBI Group Ltd. assumed the 700 hectares needed for the dam could be purchased for less than $40 million.

But Power’s report notes the footprint of affected land for the project has now nearly quadrupled in size to nearly 2,800 hectares, potentially pushing the land acquisition costs to $156 million.

While typical calculations of the indirect damages to businesses from flooding range from 10 to 45 per cent of direct damages, the IBI group uses multipliers of over 300 per cent in its worst-case scenarios.

If the more realistic or “anticipated” damage numbers in the analysis are used, Power’s review notes the Springbank project becomes “economically questionable.”

He said the government has also not looked at how alternative measures already implemented or planned like restricting or removing development from flood-prone areas could affect estimates of future damages.

Power’s review also found the government’s numbers may have overestimated the costs of an alternative solution, the McLean Creek dry dam that would be built further upstream on land already owned by the province.

The government’s study made the dry dam appear less financially attractive than Springbank after the original cost estimate was increased by $45 million to replicate aging buildings at the Elbow Ranger Station that would be impacted by the project.

“This cost was included even though the analysts did not know to what extent, if any, these facilities were still being actively used,” Power said.

“One does not ‘replicate’ a high-cost facility that is surplus or outmoded.”

A natural resources economist who has previously studied the costs and benefits of proposed dams south of the border, Power suggested the new government needs to carefully weigh any large expenditure on flood mitigation infrastructure, particularly when its budget is pinched by low energy prices.

“They need to be very careful about a commitment to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something that may contribute very little to actually reducing the costs of flood damage,” he said.

“They should go back to their consultants and ask them to fill in the holes in their analysis, tell them they’re neutral on the outcome, that we want a solution that makes sense for the whole province, not just those who live in the floodplain.”

Failing to “finish its homework” before deciding to proceed could mean the province risks having the project shot down during the environment review process.

Phillips said she will ask department staff to look at Power’s report and promised the government would not move ahead with any rash or hasty decision about major mitigation works.

But Nenshi said city experts have worked closely with their provincial counterparts to address many of those concerns over the past several months.

“Our biggest concern was that we weren’t certain that we had really properly quantified the full-on costs of a major flooding event affecting downtown Calgary,” he said.

“We lost downtown Calgary for the better part of a week last time, and what would happen if we lost downtown Calgary for a month or three months,” Nenshi added. “The impact to Canada’s GDP would be incalculable, I would think.”

Tony Morris, a spokesman for the Calgary River Communities Action Group, said he’s convinced the city needs mitigation infrastructure upstream sooner rather than later.

“The big risk is that things don’t happen due to changes in political will,” said Morris, “and that’s untenable.”

Ryan Robinson, spokesman for landowners who would be affected by the Springbank project, said the government needs to go back to the drawing board.

“The numbers it’s using for land costs on Springbank are outdated,” Robinson said. “If they use current and realistic numbers, the economic benefits of the project just evaporate.”

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

It appears increasingly likely that Alberta’s unpopular carbon tax only has a few months to live, so it comes as little solace to see a sudden burst of enthusiasm from the very environmental groups that played a hand in its probable demise.